Author
Topic: Richard Linklater (Read 36913 times)

Well, looks like tonight, (POSSIBLY, awaiting confirmation) Ms. Perm and others will get to see A Scanner Darkly. We're working on me but I have the whole "I've read it" thing still keeping me down. Trying to ask them to calm down and forget it, but I'll keep you kids posted.

who cares if school of rock was/ wasn't an "autuer" film? he went out to make a rock'n'roll movie with kids in it, and it was good, so who cares if you can't find the "linklater trademarks" in there?and in before sunset, the two actors wrote big chunks of that screenplay, Julie Delpy wrote the last song, and they were all confined by a grueling 14-day shooting schedule, but that makes Linklater more "autuer" than School of Rock, where he probably had more budget to do what he wanted?didn't truffaut admit that the whole autuer theory was just a gimmick anyways?

who cares if school of rock was/ wasn't an "autuer" film? he went out to make a rock'n'roll movie with kids in it, and it was good, so who cares if you can't find the "linklater trademarks" in there?and in before sunset, the two actors wrote big chunks of that screenplay, Julie Delpy wrote the last song, and they were all confined by a grueling 14-day shooting schedule, but that makes Linklater more "autuer" than School of Rock, where he probably had more budget to do what he wanted?didn't truffaut admit that the whole autuer theory was just a gimmick anyways?

They're just making observations. School of Rock isn't a typical Linklater film and it isn't the work of an auteur. It doesn't mean it isn't good, nor does it mean that because that complaint is made (and it's valid) that it's a bad or lesser film... well, I guess it depends how much of a Linklater fan you are and what your preferences are like. I know some people that were appalled by how mainstream it was but many enjoyed it for what it is, decent and entertainig which is exactly how soxiante described it.

I don't understand why you mention that a lot of the writing for Before Sunset was by the actors in your argument against auteurism. Linklater was still involved in the writing and he directed them in such a way to fit his style, his preferences, his way of making films. It just so happens that he likes naturalism and in order to achieve that he gives his actors a lot of freedom. But his personality is still there in every frame, which I think is what the French New Wave and Cahiers du Cinema were getting at. An autuer isn't necessarily in charge of every little aspect on a literal level, but in directing their films their personalities come through and it is undoubtedly theirs. Just because they weren't completely responsible for all ideas or writing involved in the production doesn't mean a director isn't an auteur; that quality lies in their ability to translate all those things to the screen their own way. Wes Anderson doesn't write on his own and he's always asking for other people's opinions, yet through all three of his films you see similatiries in style and personality that are so distinct that it's unmistakably a Wes Anderson picture (I only use him as an example since apparently, you're his bitch). Whether you're a fan of his or not, you can recognize it, and this can be said about a lot of directors; my two favorite examples are Bresson and Ozu, since they're so consistent. But look at the films of Hitchcock and Hawks, Wilder and Sturges, etc. etc.

I know what I described is more or less "personal" filmmaking, but the makers of those films are without a doubt auteurs. Truffaut was announcing his collaboration with Spielberg when he said the auteur theory was a gimmick, which it might have been, but it works, and I like it.

By the way just because Linklater has more budget doesn't mean he has more freedom to do what he wants. Money = liability on the studio's part; that puts him in a more compromising position to deliver something more accessible than what he's used to making, especially since it's a kid's movie (in theory). If he really had his way and didn't consider his audience and adapt to those needs and quotas, I'm sure we'd see Jack Black having existential conversations with Summer while driving the van through, all shot in one five minute take.

The report I got on last night's screening of Scanner Darkly goes like this. First off, no animation was in place. It ran about one hour and 54 minutes. Of the three people I know that watched it, each said it felt flat and un-focused, like a bad version of dazed & confused set in a bizzare world. I have a copy of the Kaufman script, and asked numerous questions and from all I can gather Linklater's version doesn't seem to differ much from CK's at least concenring the story/plot. Well, I wasn't there so who knows, my friends didn't enjoy it much, but obviously they were aware this was an early version, but so early they flet he should not have showed it- Linklater was in attendance and a q & a followed the screening. Sorry I don't have any mid-boggling details.

it wasn't just an observation; there was also disappointment lodged in there somewhere, or ask soixante.also, chill with the Wes Anderson bitch comment please.you pretty much watered down what autuerism started out to be, which is a popular defense for autuerism, that, when under critical scrutiny, its supporters fall back to "well, no, they're not LITERALLY authors, okay?" I'll subscribe to autuerism as long as it's a way of looking films--that either all directors are autuers or that no director is an autuer, because the current autuerism seems to only applaud the obvious directorial flourishes...what you referred to as "personalities came through". But first of all, how can you tell between a creative gimmicky shot and "true personality"? Why can't Linklater's personality come through in School of Rock? Just because it lacks the obvious "trademarks" of a Linklater movie? So is it up to you to decide whether or not a filmmaker is an autuer based on what YOU can recognize in a filmmaker? And also, when does an autuer stop being an autuer? When the budget reaches $2 million? When he gives in to the producers for the 26th time? Unless there is a specific, foolish guideline of checklists that can hold each filmmaker up against, the "autuer theory" will remain a First Year Film Student term for what generic fanboys refer to as "genius;" as a mystification of the filmmaking process.each director can bring something unique to the project, and he can bring more or less depending on how much creative control he has, but that applies to ALL directors, so unless you can specify your definition of an autuer more than the conventional "some guy with A voice"--because every guy has a voice, your argument will remain a hollow one.

Quote from: samsong

They're just making observations. School of Rock isn't a typical Linklater film and it isn't the work of an auteur. It doesn't mean it isn't good, nor does it mean that because that complaint is made (and it's valid) that it's a bad or lesser film... well, I guess it depends how much of a Linklater fan you are and what your preferences are like. I know some people that were appalled by how mainstream it was but many enjoyed it for what it is, decent and entertainig which is exactly how soxiante described it.

I don't understand why you mention that a lot of the writing for Before Sunset was by the actors in your argument against auteurism. Linklater was still involved in the writing and he directed them in such a way to fit his style, his preferences, his way of making films. It just so happens that he likes naturalism and in order to achieve that he gives his actors a lot of freedom. But his personality is still there in every frame, which I think is what the French New Wave and Cahiers du Cinema were getting at. An autuer isn't necessarily in charge of every little aspect on a literal level, but in directing their films their personalities come through and it is undoubtedly theirs. Just because they weren't completely responsible for all ideas or writing involved in the production doesn't mean a director isn't an auteur; that quality lies in their ability to translate all those things to the screen their own way. Wes Anderson doesn't write on his own and he's always asking for other people's opinions, yet through all three of his films you see similatiries in style and personality that are so distinct that it's unmistakably a Wes Anderson picture (I only use him as an example since apparently, you're his bitch). Whether you're a fan of his or not, you can recognize it, and this can be said about a lot of directors; my two favorite examples are Bresson and Ozu, since they're so consistent. But look at the films of Hitchcock and Hawks, Wilder and Sturges, etc. etc.

I know what I described is more or less "personal" filmmaking, but the makers of those films are without a doubt auteurs. Truffaut was announcing his collaboration with Spielberg when he said the auteur theory was a gimmick, which it might have been, but it works, and I like it.

By the way just because Linklater has more budget doesn't mean he has more freedom to do what he wants. Money = liability on the studio's part; that puts him in a more compromising position to deliver something more accessible than what he's used to making, especially since it's a kid's movie (in theory). If he really had his way and didn't consider his audience and adapt to those needs and quotas, I'm sure we'd see Jack Black having existential conversations with Summer while driving the van through, all shot in one five minute take.

it wasn't just an observation; there was also disappointment lodged in there somewhere, or ask soixante.also, chill with the Wes Anderson bitch comment please.you pretty much watered down what autuerism started out to be, which is a popular defense for autuerism, that, when under critical scrutiny, its supporters fall back to "well, no, they're not LITERALLY authors, okay?" I'll subscribe to autuerism as long as it's a way of looking films--that either all directors are autuers or that no director is an autuer, because the current autuerism seems to only applaud the obvious directorial flourishes...what you referred to as "personalities came through". But first of all, how can you tell between a creative gimmicky shot and "true personality"? Why can't Linklater's personality come through in School of Rock? Just because it lacks the obvious "trademarks" of a Linklater movie? So is it up to you to decide whether or not a filmmaker is an autuer based on what YOU can recognize in a filmmaker? And also, when does an autuer stop being an autuer? When the budget reaches $2 million? When he gives in to the producers for the 26th time? Unless there is a specific, foolish guideline of checklists that can hold each filmmaker up against, the "autuer theory" will remain a First Year Film Student term for what generic fanboys refer to as "genius;" as a mystification of the filmmaking process.each director can bring something unique to the project, and he can bring more or less depending on how much creative control he has, but that applies to ALL directors, so unless you can specify your definition of an autuer more than the conventional "some guy with A voice"--because every guy has a voice, your argument will remain a hollow one.

Quote from: samsong

They're just making observations. School of Rock isn't a typical Linklater film and it isn't the work of an auteur. It doesn't mean it isn't good, nor does it mean that because that complaint is made (and it's valid) that it's a bad or lesser film... well, I guess it depends how much of a Linklater fan you are and what your preferences are like. I know some people that were appalled by how mainstream it was but many enjoyed it for what it is, decent and entertainig which is exactly how soxiante described it.

I don't understand why you mention that a lot of the writing for Before Sunset was by the actors in your argument against auteurism. Linklater was still involved in the writing and he directed them in such a way to fit his style, his preferences, his way of making films. It just so happens that he likes naturalism and in order to achieve that he gives his actors a lot of freedom. But his personality is still there in every frame, which I think is what the French New Wave and Cahiers du Cinema were getting at. An autuer isn't necessarily in charge of every little aspect on a literal level, but in directing their films their personalities come through and it is undoubtedly theirs. Just because they weren't completely responsible for all ideas or writing involved in the production doesn't mean a director isn't an auteur; that quality lies in their ability to translate all those things to the screen their own way. Wes Anderson doesn't write on his own and he's always asking for other people's opinions, yet through all three of his films you see similatiries in style and personality that are so distinct that it's unmistakably a Wes Anderson picture (I only use him as an example since apparently, you're his bitch). Whether you're a fan of his or not, you can recognize it, and this can be said about a lot of directors; my two favorite examples are Bresson and Ozu, since they're so consistent. But look at the films of Hitchcock and Hawks, Wilder and Sturges, etc. etc.

I know what I described is more or less "personal" filmmaking, but the makers of those films are without a doubt auteurs. Truffaut was announcing his collaboration with Spielberg when he said the auteur theory was a gimmick, which it might have been, but it works, and I like it.

By the way just because Linklater has more budget doesn't mean he has more freedom to do what he wants. Money = liability on the studio's part; that puts him in a more compromising position to deliver something more accessible than what he's used to making, especially since it's a kid's movie (in theory). If he really had his way and didn't consider his audience and adapt to those needs and quotas, I'm sure we'd see Jack Black having existential conversations with Summer while driving the van through, all shot in one five minute take.

Suddenly (most, if not... I didn't read the entire thing) all your grammar is correct... I can admit "defeat" but... well, let's make it official. Can one of you lovely admins change my username subtitle to "not to be taken seriously"? Thanks. The cracks and such directed towards you were just jokes... you like playing devil's advocate in just about EVERY thread so I figured I'd give it a try. Besides your initial statements were as hollow as you seem to find mine. Now I know what you meant.

I'm a Nouvelle Vague "fanboy" as you so aptly put it, so I tend to hold onto those ideals. As for the auteur theory, I did say that it worked for me, and that I liked it. I like the films I like and admire the filmmakers I admire... I'm working on articulating those thoughts instead of simply claiming intuition or going adjective crazy and nonsensically worshipping, which I think I've been doing for quite some time.

Whatever, I'd like to call a truce... in terms of the insults. We're the only two Asians on this board (to my knowledge)... we should stick together.

You can pretty much lump all directors into one of two categories: director-for-hire or auteur. Imagine a Venn diagram. Some fall in the middle, as is the case with most dichotomies. And there is a whole spectrum involved as well. Linklater is an auteur, for better or worse. He, like Scorsese, though, has taken a "one for me, one for you" approach to filmmaking. Something most strict auteurs couldn't do. Hence, why people like Kubrick, PTA, Wes, and Lynch and such are admirable: they make a film when they need to, when the story is there. That's why it's taking so long for PTA to come out with his next flick. At least, we hope so.

Now that you've read this far, disregard everything I've said, considering you don't want me to take you seriously. And paragraphs. Yep. Gotta love 'em.

but who decides that it's an "one for you one for me" approach? does Linklater turn off the Linklater-o-meter when he signs that deal, becomes a studio zombie, until his next "little movie"? are you saying that you can't find Scorsese flourishes in Gangs of New York, or whatever film YOU decided that wasn't "Scorsese" enough for Scorsese? also, why can one lump all directors into two categories? can't autuers be hired? are they not themselves once they're hired? can't directors who do it for money show personal flourishes as well? what about those production teams that do everything together, like pixar or something?

as I've said before, I view the autuer theory as a way of looking at films, not as a film-by-film, person-by-person stamp of approval (unlike a dogme film). the theory is useful when writing a paper on a series of films done by the same person--because it's easier to assume that two films have a lot in common because of one guy (as opposed to the country it's made in, the audience intended, the investors, the political climate, the production team, the era....etc.). But it becomes pretty pointless when you're saying the same person is an autuer here but not an autuer there, but is an autuer again a few months later. Because you just end up trivializing the filmmaking process and watering down a theory (autuerism, in your argument, becomes something that is only there when you see it's convenient to address it, but you dismiss it altogether when it's too mainstream).

Quote from: samsong

Whatever, I'd like to call a truce... in terms of the insults. We're the only two Asians on this board (to my knowledge)... we should stick together.

Ravi is here representing, but lets leave the Asians out of this, otherwise some cocksucker's knee will jerk again.

I haven't watched Slacker yet, but I've got the Criterion disc from Netflix right now and tonight I watched Linklater's first super8mm feature, Its Impossible To Learn To Plow By Reading Books. To be honest, I fell asleep in it (and I'm the guy who was thrilled by The Brown Bunny and blown away by Gerry). But even though it's tedious, I'd still say that it's good because you can tell Linklater's finding his voice and has something definite that he wants to make, audiences be damned. He says on the commentary that he realizes its tough on audiences, and that he was obsessed with banality when he made it. Basically, it's very much like Slacker, only without any dialogue. There are only about ten or fifteen lines in the whole movie (at least it seems that way). Although it's shot on super8mm, it's not amateurish at all...you can tell Linklater had a vision and stuck to it. So anyway, even though my viewing of it was interrupted by an inadverdent nap, I did feel that it was worth watching again with the commentary track.